A wonderful first start would be school vouchers so that families could use money to purchase home-schooling curricula and supplies. I am a stay-at-home mom who, at one for point, lived in 700 SQ ft 2 BR/1 bath home with my husband, three young children, a mom with advancing Alzheimers and a senior dog and cat. I “purchased” most of my books from the local Goodwill and Salvation Army. We could not, at that time, afford much at all. It seems to have caused no real harm to our children. Our oldest is about to graduate from GA Tech with a 3.95 GPA in Aerospace Engineering. That said, it was a struggle and the least that could have been done would have been to allow us the use of the tax dollars of which we were not partaking for our own kids in the abysmal public schools. I love your idea of elevating the role of homemaker. But even if the world foolishly continues to view it as menial, in the end, my reward is that we have a very close-knit family because I was at home with my kiddos.
I actually think that in a certain mysterious, paradoxical way, the fact that motherhood *is not* high-status lends it an air of untouchable nobility that helps the vocation of motherhood transcend the vain money/fame & status-driven culture that dominates modern society.
All true and very well-written. I made the choice to be a stay-at-home mom full-time once I had children, and don't regret it for a minute. I'm sad to say, however, that it is getting harder and harder to live on that one income. Now that my youngest is in 2nd grade, I've found a very part-time job that I can do when the kids are in school and only two days a week. I use that entire paycheck toward classes or enrichment activities for the kids, like music lessons or swim lessons in the summer. As they get older I will probably increase my working hours in order to pay for their college educations and all of the incidentals that go along with that. However, I plan to work in a school so that until they are 18, I am home in the summers when they are home, and I'm off when they are off.
Oh this is such a complicated question, one I think about a lot, and haven't got a clue! I'm not sure our modern culture as it currently exists has any way of meaningfully valuing homemaking, or caring. I think it has more to do with the nature of 'jobs' as we currently perceive them than it does with the work that people do. Before industrialization and the concept of a 'job' as seperate from 'the rest of your life' I don't think we had these tangled questions. Nobody would think that the work mothers and women were doing was in anyway not actually work, or not valuable. Just like the work men did was work and valuable, and lots of that work was shared anyway, being largely agriculture. While we have this odd culture of everything being about having a paid job seperate from your home life and family, if you're not making that sweet cash money, you're not as valuable. I don't agree with that, but I can't see it changing until we all change.
Oh just a follow up... I am saying this as someone who is paid to provide care. When I practice my skills to care for others whilst being paid for it, this is acceptable and somewhat valued. When I practice these exact same skills and activities to care for my family or others while not being paid, that is not valuable to our culture. Which is insane and gives me intellectual whiplash. I am a competent and capable caregiver because of the years I have spent caring without being paid... now my employer can utilize these expensive (in terms of time spent practicing and gaining) skills, and pay me relatively low wages for it. The world is broken 🤔
Such important thinking here. I have Jim's piece saved but haven't had a chance to read it (alas, the demands of homemaking;)). I'm actually working on a piece for IFS along these lines, out next week I think!
Great post. The status factor and class divide are real. I was just talking to a retired grandma who was a SAHM (she also worked as an RN at several points). Her husband was a surgeon. She volunteered at her kids’ schools, eventually served on a school board, and did a lot of volunteering and philanthropy. We were both lamenting how we don’t know how to help young (like 19-20 year old) SAHMs who don’t ask for help with cleaning and household management, perhaps because they don’t know what they don’t know (the young women we were thinking of had finished high school at most). But when we’ve helped some out with doctor appointment transport and other non-household things (like babysitting), and they’re essentially living in squalor—no place to walk due to too much stuff, filthy surfaces and obvious places that haven’t been cleaned in far too long—what to do? This is part of the status divide.
I’m not sure how to classify it. One trend, very anecdotally, is that these SAHMs who seem to struggle with basic hygiene, etc. are those that did not attend or graduate from college. But that’s not altogether true, either; some of the dirtiest homes I’ve been in have moms with BA degrees (and their mothers also had college degrees). Maybe the key is how these women are raised in girlhood; basically what, if any, training their mothers gave them. One of my grandmothers had an 8th grade education, and her home was immaculate. Her mother was a SAHM and farm wife (I’m not sure if she went to high school). Another grandmother had gone through nurse’s training post-high school, and hers was almost always dusty/messy. Her mother was married four times, so she’d lived with upheaval, to say the least. Then again, if I consider myself, I differ from my sister in terms of our expectations and management of our households, and we had the same mother (BA, immaculate housekeeper. Her mother was the one with the 8th grade education and an immaculate house :)).
All this is to say, I suppose, that the status of SAHMs is at least somewhat tied to the public image of how their households are actually managed. Upper-class/elite households, where women have most likely received some formal training/education, and can also afford domestic help with drudgery, typically have well-dressed kids, with scheduled activities and the like. They can host guests fairly regularly in clean, neat homes. That’s not an absolute, of course. Lower-class households, with SAHMs with less likelihood of formal (or informal) training/education, might struggle more with having appropriate or clean clothing on their kids, won’t have scheduled activities or as many, and likely won’t host others in their homes much. Again, that’s not an absolute. But the general realities of differences of social class and status, and how they are viewed by others, is key to understanding why SAHMs are viewed how they are.
It’s not fair in the sense of how God sees families; He sees to the heart and beyond physical circumstances. Hence why a rich SAHM might be extremely poor in spirit, as is her household, while a lower-class SAHM might be beautifully blessed by piety in her family and household. But we humans do judge by appearances. This is a ramble of a post, but it’s relevant, I think.
Really, really enjoyed this post and now have a thousand thoughts rattling around in my head.
I agree that homemaking is unlikely to achieve the status of, say, movie stars. But I think there's a question here about who we revere. Because I'm a guy and think often about the Roman Empire (haha) I'm reminded of how the Romans chose for their heroes people that embodied their values. So, someone like Alexander the Great or Hannibal — military savants. To me, the lesson here is that we could situate more mothers (and family-focused men too btw) in the pantheon of our cultural mythology. I'm sitting here struggling, actually, to think of cultural heroes who are also known and revered as good parents or leaders of their families.
I also liked this point, and the list that follows: "However, many high-status, wealthy families have a homemaker who does extremely valuable work, including:"
But I wonder if these activities are limited to the elites. A bunch of moms who have a play group are also networking. My neighbors hold a Christmas party each year — organized by the SAHM — that functions as a neighborhood gathering. Moms at every income level do quite a bit of logistics work. Sure, lower income moms are probably not serving on the board of directors for the local art museum, but I think the CEO-of-the-family role is not entirely limited to elite moms. I don't always love importing the language of business into the family, but for lack of another option, I don't know why we couldn't reconceptualize of stay at home moms (or dads) across the income spectrum as chief executives. I think the debate about SAHMs is gradually making its way into the mainstream, but outside of niche substacks I don't see a lot of mainstream recognition of the logistical/administrative/managerial tasks all stay at home parents do. It seems like most people think of SAHMs as doing mostly ~parenting~ when in fact they're managing a household.
I imagine we're relatively aligned on a lot of this. But maybe the point I'm rambling toward here is that I don't think every stay at home mom or dad becomes high status bc they're a SAHM. Rather, it matters who our heroes are. I'm reminded of polling showing huge numbers of teens want to be influencers. Most won't succeed at that goal, but I think it still matters that that is their goal. It wasn't so long ago that a lot of teens (esp girls) would have said their goal was to be parents. And I wonder if the hero-choosing part of this equation actually comes ~before~ the policy crafting. The Romans didn't revere Alexander after they conquered the world, they conquered the world bc they first had a hero to look up to.
I really appreciate this as a working-class homemaker. I argue that homemaking should just be the norm; not that there aren't layers upon layers of nuance as to what this means, but in the same way that we should consider it the norm for parents to see to the moral education of their children or adult children to care for their older parents. When a woman becomes a wife, children or no, she is the mistress of the household that is created by a marriage. This will take many different forms but as you illustrate, benefits community and even society in ways that aren't always measured by monetary worth.
A wonderful first start would be school vouchers so that families could use money to purchase home-schooling curricula and supplies. I am a stay-at-home mom who, at one for point, lived in 700 SQ ft 2 BR/1 bath home with my husband, three young children, a mom with advancing Alzheimers and a senior dog and cat. I “purchased” most of my books from the local Goodwill and Salvation Army. We could not, at that time, afford much at all. It seems to have caused no real harm to our children. Our oldest is about to graduate from GA Tech with a 3.95 GPA in Aerospace Engineering. That said, it was a struggle and the least that could have been done would have been to allow us the use of the tax dollars of which we were not partaking for our own kids in the abysmal public schools. I love your idea of elevating the role of homemaker. But even if the world foolishly continues to view it as menial, in the end, my reward is that we have a very close-knit family because I was at home with my kiddos.
Thank you for sharing your story, Ellen! What an amazing history, and I agree: I imagine your kids are better off.
Thank you. I believe that they are.
I actually think that in a certain mysterious, paradoxical way, the fact that motherhood *is not* high-status lends it an air of untouchable nobility that helps the vocation of motherhood transcend the vain money/fame & status-driven culture that dominates modern society.
I love that thought!
Trying to wrestle through it to articulate it clearly! Hopefully I can write a bit more about it soon…
All true and very well-written. I made the choice to be a stay-at-home mom full-time once I had children, and don't regret it for a minute. I'm sad to say, however, that it is getting harder and harder to live on that one income. Now that my youngest is in 2nd grade, I've found a very part-time job that I can do when the kids are in school and only two days a week. I use that entire paycheck toward classes or enrichment activities for the kids, like music lessons or swim lessons in the summer. As they get older I will probably increase my working hours in order to pay for their college educations and all of the incidentals that go along with that. However, I plan to work in a school so that until they are 18, I am home in the summers when they are home, and I'm off when they are off.
It is so hard to live on one income! I’m glad you’ve found a flexible work arrangement that is working for you and your family.
Oh this is such a complicated question, one I think about a lot, and haven't got a clue! I'm not sure our modern culture as it currently exists has any way of meaningfully valuing homemaking, or caring. I think it has more to do with the nature of 'jobs' as we currently perceive them than it does with the work that people do. Before industrialization and the concept of a 'job' as seperate from 'the rest of your life' I don't think we had these tangled questions. Nobody would think that the work mothers and women were doing was in anyway not actually work, or not valuable. Just like the work men did was work and valuable, and lots of that work was shared anyway, being largely agriculture. While we have this odd culture of everything being about having a paid job seperate from your home life and family, if you're not making that sweet cash money, you're not as valuable. I don't agree with that, but I can't see it changing until we all change.
Oh just a follow up... I am saying this as someone who is paid to provide care. When I practice my skills to care for others whilst being paid for it, this is acceptable and somewhat valued. When I practice these exact same skills and activities to care for my family or others while not being paid, that is not valuable to our culture. Which is insane and gives me intellectual whiplash. I am a competent and capable caregiver because of the years I have spent caring without being paid... now my employer can utilize these expensive (in terms of time spent practicing and gaining) skills, and pay me relatively low wages for it. The world is broken 🤔
That is so interesting to have the two perspectives as both an unpaid caregiver and now a paid caregiver. Thank you for sharing your story!
Such important thinking here. I have Jim's piece saved but haven't had a chance to read it (alas, the demands of homemaking;)). I'm actually working on a piece for IFS along these lines, out next week I think!
I’ll look forward to reading your essay at IFS!
Great post. The status factor and class divide are real. I was just talking to a retired grandma who was a SAHM (she also worked as an RN at several points). Her husband was a surgeon. She volunteered at her kids’ schools, eventually served on a school board, and did a lot of volunteering and philanthropy. We were both lamenting how we don’t know how to help young (like 19-20 year old) SAHMs who don’t ask for help with cleaning and household management, perhaps because they don’t know what they don’t know (the young women we were thinking of had finished high school at most). But when we’ve helped some out with doctor appointment transport and other non-household things (like babysitting), and they’re essentially living in squalor—no place to walk due to too much stuff, filthy surfaces and obvious places that haven’t been cleaned in far too long—what to do? This is part of the status divide.
I’m not sure how to classify it. One trend, very anecdotally, is that these SAHMs who seem to struggle with basic hygiene, etc. are those that did not attend or graduate from college. But that’s not altogether true, either; some of the dirtiest homes I’ve been in have moms with BA degrees (and their mothers also had college degrees). Maybe the key is how these women are raised in girlhood; basically what, if any, training their mothers gave them. One of my grandmothers had an 8th grade education, and her home was immaculate. Her mother was a SAHM and farm wife (I’m not sure if she went to high school). Another grandmother had gone through nurse’s training post-high school, and hers was almost always dusty/messy. Her mother was married four times, so she’d lived with upheaval, to say the least. Then again, if I consider myself, I differ from my sister in terms of our expectations and management of our households, and we had the same mother (BA, immaculate housekeeper. Her mother was the one with the 8th grade education and an immaculate house :)).
All this is to say, I suppose, that the status of SAHMs is at least somewhat tied to the public image of how their households are actually managed. Upper-class/elite households, where women have most likely received some formal training/education, and can also afford domestic help with drudgery, typically have well-dressed kids, with scheduled activities and the like. They can host guests fairly regularly in clean, neat homes. That’s not an absolute, of course. Lower-class households, with SAHMs with less likelihood of formal (or informal) training/education, might struggle more with having appropriate or clean clothing on their kids, won’t have scheduled activities or as many, and likely won’t host others in their homes much. Again, that’s not an absolute. But the general realities of differences of social class and status, and how they are viewed by others, is key to understanding why SAHMs are viewed how they are.
It’s not fair in the sense of how God sees families; He sees to the heart and beyond physical circumstances. Hence why a rich SAHM might be extremely poor in spirit, as is her household, while a lower-class SAHM might be beautifully blessed by piety in her family and household. But we humans do judge by appearances. This is a ramble of a post, but it’s relevant, I think.
Really, really enjoyed this post and now have a thousand thoughts rattling around in my head.
I agree that homemaking is unlikely to achieve the status of, say, movie stars. But I think there's a question here about who we revere. Because I'm a guy and think often about the Roman Empire (haha) I'm reminded of how the Romans chose for their heroes people that embodied their values. So, someone like Alexander the Great or Hannibal — military savants. To me, the lesson here is that we could situate more mothers (and family-focused men too btw) in the pantheon of our cultural mythology. I'm sitting here struggling, actually, to think of cultural heroes who are also known and revered as good parents or leaders of their families.
I also liked this point, and the list that follows: "However, many high-status, wealthy families have a homemaker who does extremely valuable work, including:"
But I wonder if these activities are limited to the elites. A bunch of moms who have a play group are also networking. My neighbors hold a Christmas party each year — organized by the SAHM — that functions as a neighborhood gathering. Moms at every income level do quite a bit of logistics work. Sure, lower income moms are probably not serving on the board of directors for the local art museum, but I think the CEO-of-the-family role is not entirely limited to elite moms. I don't always love importing the language of business into the family, but for lack of another option, I don't know why we couldn't reconceptualize of stay at home moms (or dads) across the income spectrum as chief executives. I think the debate about SAHMs is gradually making its way into the mainstream, but outside of niche substacks I don't see a lot of mainstream recognition of the logistical/administrative/managerial tasks all stay at home parents do. It seems like most people think of SAHMs as doing mostly ~parenting~ when in fact they're managing a household.
I imagine we're relatively aligned on a lot of this. But maybe the point I'm rambling toward here is that I don't think every stay at home mom or dad becomes high status bc they're a SAHM. Rather, it matters who our heroes are. I'm reminded of polling showing huge numbers of teens want to be influencers. Most won't succeed at that goal, but I think it still matters that that is their goal. It wasn't so long ago that a lot of teens (esp girls) would have said their goal was to be parents. And I wonder if the hero-choosing part of this equation actually comes ~before~ the policy crafting. The Romans didn't revere Alexander after they conquered the world, they conquered the world bc they first had a hero to look up to.
I really appreciate this as a working-class homemaker. I argue that homemaking should just be the norm; not that there aren't layers upon layers of nuance as to what this means, but in the same way that we should consider it the norm for parents to see to the moral education of their children or adult children to care for their older parents. When a woman becomes a wife, children or no, she is the mistress of the household that is created by a marriage. This will take many different forms but as you illustrate, benefits community and even society in ways that aren't always measured by monetary worth.